fix(no-node-access): narrow detection to Testing Library queries

[y-hsgw]

Checks

• I have read the contributing guidelines.

Changes

This PR changes the rule to only report native DOM event method calls (e.g. click(), select()…) when the receiver is an element obtained via Testing Library queries (e.g. screen.getBy*, findBy*, queryBy*, chains).

Previously: the rule broadly reported any event handler method that was not fireEvent or userEvent.

Now: the rule reports only when event handler methods are called on results of Testing Library queries.

This reduces false positives while keeping the intended guidance.

Background

The prior, wide-scoped detection caused false positives when non–Testing Library APIs exposed methods with the same names as DOM event handlers.

Related reports:

• no-node-access reports issue with object method #1063
• no-node-access rule incorrectly triggering from RTK Query syntax in 7.5.4 #1041

Limitation: This rule does not report cases where an element is obtained directly from document, for example:

document.getElementById('hoge').click();

However, we consider this acceptable because, in our setup, the direct element retrieval itself (in this example, getElementById) is already reported, so the lack of a report here should not be an issue.

---

This is a proposal PR. Please review, and if there are no concerns, I’ll proceed to broaden the test coverage afterward!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.41%. Comparing base (1467a18) to head (f749e12).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1064      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.45%   96.41%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          50       50              
  Lines        2709     2675      -34     
  Branches     1124     1096      -28     
==========================================
- Hits         2613     2579      -34     
  Misses         96       96              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Belco90]

I like this approach, which is in the same direction of getting rid of the aggressive reporting (I'm still writing an RFC for it), so we only report for Testing Library utils.

the direct element retrieval itself (in this example, getElementById) is already reported, so the lack of a report here should not be an issue.

I'm not sure about what rule would report document.getElementById('hoge').click();, @y-hsgw can you clarify this?

[y-hsgw]

Thanks! I’ll proceed with this approach and focus on increasing the test coverage.

I'm not sure about what rule would report document.getElementById('hoge').click();,

You’re right—that was my mistake; I misunderstood. We don’t currently report document.getElementById('hoge').click(). Sorry for the confusion on my part 🙇‍♂️

[y-hsgw]

I’ve increased the test coverage and completed the implementation. Please review.